1 Filed 3/10/22 In re A.O. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re A.O., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. A.O.,
Defendant and Appellant. A161968

(Solano County Super. Ct. No. J44673)

Appellant A.O. was declared a dependent child of Solano

County in 2019. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300.) 1 In 2020

, the
Merced County District Attorney filed a wardship petition in that

county alleging appellant had committed the crimes of assault

with a deadly weapon, carrying a concealed dirk or dagger and
resisting a peace officer. ( § 602; Pen. Code, §§ 245, subd. ( a)(1),

21310, 148, subd, (a)(1).) The allegations were based on an

incident in which appellant stabbed a n employee of the group

home where she was living with a fork, resisted the peace officers

1 Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.2

who responded to the altercation, and was discovered to be

c arrying scissors inside her waistband.

When a minor qualifies as both a dependent and a ward of

the juvenile court, she cannot simultaneously be both. (§ 241.1 ;

In re Marcus G. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1012 .) Because

appellant was a lready a dependent child when the wardship
petition was filed , a report under section 241.1 was prepared to

assist the court in determin ing whether she should be treated as

a dependent or a ward under the juvenile law. The report

recommended that appellant be tre ated as a ward

. Appellant admitted the wardship petition on the condition
that she be considered for a deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) at
disposition, which was contemplated to be in Solano County

following a transfer

. T he court determined that wardshi p under

section 602 , rather than dependency status, best suited
appellant’s needs.
The case was transferred to Solano County for disposition,

where , because the parties determined DEJ was unlikely, the

court allowed appellant to withdraw her admission t o the entire

petition, waive her request for a DEJ determination, and admit

only a single count alleging the possession of a dirk or dagger.

Fo llowing appellant’s admission to the dirk or dagger count,
appellant was placed on probation subject to several conditions.

The court denied a ppellant’s request to reconsider the

determination under section 241.1 that she be treated as a ward

. Appellant filed this appeal, challenging the determination

that she should be treated as a ward and requesting a new3

section 241.1 assessment. After the respondent’s brief was filed

, appellant advised th i s Court that she had successfully completed

probation , and that t he juvenile court had dismissed the matter

and sealed the records pursuant to section 786. We requ ested
supplemental briefing as to whether this rendered the appeal

moot. Both parties filed supplemental letter briefs stating that it

was . We agree.

“ As a general rule, an appellate court only decides actual

controversies. It is not the function of the appellate court to
render opinions ‘ “ ‘ “ upon moot questions or abstract

propositions, or.

. .declare principles or rules of law which cannot

affect the matter in issue in the case before it. ” ’ ” ’ [ Citation

. ]

‘ [A] case becomes moot when a court ruling can have no practical

effect or cannot provide the parties with effective relief. ’ ” ( People

v. Rish (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1380 .) “ [A]n action that

originally was based on a justiciable controversy cannot be

maintained on appeal if al l the questions have become moot by

subsequent acts or events. A reversal in such a case would be

without practical effect, and the appeal will therefore be

dismissed. ” (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal,
§ 642, p. 669 ; In re Dani R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 402, 404 .)

Th is appeal challenge s the determination that appellant

should be treated as a ward rather than as a de pendent. Because

the wardship matter has been dismissed and the records sealed,

success on appeal , i.e., a determination tha t appellant should not

have been treated as a ward or was entitled to a new report4

under section 241.1, would not change appellant’s status in

juvenile court. This Court cannot provide effective relie f.

Courts do have the discretion to review moot appea ls when
they involve a matter of public interest or present issues that are likely to recur while evading appellate review

. ( People v.
Gregerson (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 306, 321.) The parties have

identified no such issues in this case.

The appeal is dismissed.5 NEEDHAM, J.

We concur.

JACKSON, P.J.

SIMONS, J.

In re A.O. / A161968